Friday, April 12, 2013

Using Our Voices: We will not be Silent on Tar Sands Expansion

Last Tuesday I attended a talk at the Brookings Institute - a DC based non-profit think tank - titledUS
Alberta Energy Relations: A Conversation with Allison Redford. I
attended with the full intention of having a conversation about Tar Sands
extraction and the climate consequences with Premier Allison Redford - the lead
government official from Alberta, Canada. When I arrived I quickly realized that I was
not going to be having a conversation with anyone. In this form of "conversation"
the Brookings Institute asks audience participants to write down their
questions on a card that get passed up, then a woman chooses which questions
get asked and the Chairman of Cambridge Energy Research Association, Daniel Yergin get's to talk to Premier Redford about the question.

My viewpoint looking at Premier Redford and Alex Yergin

According
to the dictionary the definition of conversation is "The informal exchange
of ideas by spoken words." Instead of having a conversation -which by
everyone's connotation implies an exchange of ideas with voices - the Brooking
Institute chose to assault and kick-out anyone who sought to use their voices to have a real
conversation with Premier Allison Redford. By the end of my time at the hearing, I would be assaulted by security guards and removed from the room for attempting a conversation about the climate impacts of tar sands extraction and proliferation. Here's the video and below is my story. Here's a link to a major news outlet that covered "the interruption." Here's a link to the entire conversation via webcast made available by the Brookings Institute.

At the
beginning of the event there were about eight climate activists in the room. Some of these activists held up #noKXL signs every
time they heard what sounded like a lie coming from Premier Redford in her
opening statements. They were issued one warning and when they held up the signs
again, they were grabbed by security guards and forcibly removed from the room within
ten minutes into the talk.

Meanwhile,
Premiere Redford was smiling and saying that she was excited to have a
conversation with us. That she would like to know our thoughts about Keystone
XL, so that she could share the truth about the pipeline because "the
dialogue that is going on right now about [the keystone xl pipeline] suffers
some serious, glaring deficiencies."

I
sat there listening to all that was being said about Alberta's hugely
profitable energy supply and learning that if Keystone was built it could expand profits by 6 billion
dollars for Alberta, CA. I watched as these oil profiteers made casual the idea of extracting and exporting Tar Sands via pipeline or
rail to foreign ports over American soil. I watched as pipeline and rail car
spills were dismissed as unfortunate consequences and necessary side effects to oil proliferation. I
watched as the cimate consequences of tar sands extraction were being
completely ignored.

A pic of the spill from the Mayflower Pipeline in Arkansas last week.

As I
watched, my passion for preserving nature and restoring humanity's rightful
place on planet earth began to overtake my attachment to the process of
conversation the Brookings Institute had provided to us. I asked a worker at
the Brookings Institute if I could use my voice as I felt that speaking is an
essential part of a conversation. I was quickly told no and to write down my
question. Then two security guards stood closer to me to remind me that I was
not allowed to use my voice.

So, I
wrote down my question: "It has been noted that extracting all of the oil
from the tar sands would bring our climate to over 500 ppm Co2 concentration.
NASA's top climate scientist James Hansen has noted that 350 ppm is the healthy
level for life on planet earth. How do you believe we can sustain life on
planet earth with a 500 ppm concentration of CO2? Will your profits be there to
help rebuild my community after extreme weather events leave our infrastructure
compromised?" I wrote another comment below "If we were wise of climate
concerns and human rights, we would encourage localized permaculture (permanent
agriculture) sharing systems, energy efficiency, and small scale energy
production that is owned and produced within our communities."

Then a
friend stood up and spoke. She said "This is a sham. We ought to
be more creative. Create Green Jobs. All we need is a little subsidies."
She showed courage and I was proud of her. She was escorted out.

I
watched as Premier Redford and Daniel Yergin said that building the keystone
pipeline was okay because it would only account for less than 1% of the
pipelines already existing in the United States. My passion for a healthy connection
with nature overtook me and without premeditating a statement I stood up and
spoke. I said "Let's get something
straight. You are responsible for these pipelines in the United States. You are responsible for oil
proliferation on our continent." And then I got tackled. If I had been
given three more seconds, I probably would've said "you are responsible
for permanently cooking our planet." In the video, you can see me dash towards the front of the room, simply because I was being chased from the back.You can also hear - as my Mom pointed out - me giggle as I am being tackled. I am always laughing and giggling, it is the only way to stay happy in such situations.

Now, I
am not usually a combative person, but I seemed to be so because I was under threat already
from security guard. I also felt despair as I live that "with eyes wide open to the issue" and
felt the obsession with profits and preserving the oil drenched status quo were
an attack on my potential to have a healthy family in the future. So, I stood up
and took a combative tone. If I had been given a chance to speak my mind
clearly without despair or threat, I probably would not have been so "you"
oriented in my tone.

As I
was being carried out of the room I said a couple things that probably saved me
from more persecution. I said "I am not hurting anybody. I am not hurting
anybody." As I was being carried by five security guards. I said "I
have legs and I know how to use them to walk myself to the door." Then a
security guard said to me "I am a real man and I will break your
neck." In an instant without hesitation, I responded "real men don't
break necks." Outside of the building I let all employees of the Brookings Institute know that they are complicit in cooking our planet and impeding human rights by providing a forum that wasn't a real conversation, but rather a platform to espouse mistruths about oil sands expansion. I also let the security guard know that he should seek anger management counseling and that "real men take compassionate stances for the world."

While I
was being carried off, it gave some friends who were still in the room a chance
to speak. One stood up and said "Climate Change means mass casualty famines,
mass casualty droughts." Another followed with "Can you tell us about
these facts about climate change outside of the area of Alberta?" Thus an
important point was made directly to one of the people who holds the most power
to avert climate disaster on the North American continent. Momentarily, a real conversation happened. And momentarily the truth about climate change
entered the room, but that truth was escorted out of the room just as soon as it had entered. They can hire security guards and advertisements, but no matter how much money the have, they can never buy the truth.

If I
were to give advice about the courage it took to speak it's really quite
simple. If you live with compassion in your heart for all of living things -
people, plants, animals, fungus, and even soil microbes - you are embodying the
immune response for Gaia and humanity to climate change. If you hold compassion
instead of fear in your heart, you become a powerful and righteous voice on the
planet and your very being becomes grounded in the ethics that will restore
humanity's right relationship with mother earth.

Regardless
of the present status quo or climate change, this right relationship is inevitable
because having a healthy, direct relationship with nature is one of the
fundamental aspects of being a human being on planet earth. I believe that the
vast majority of problems in America - from systemic economic oppression to
obesity - stem from our culture understating the importance of a personal
relationship with nature and substituting that relationship with fossil fuels. Speaking truth to this relationship is grounded in
the very physics, spirituality, and essential to living on this planet peacefully. Because this relationship is inherent within us all, it holds more
precedence when heard by an open minded person than any idea grounded in
momentary profits or egoist motives.

To learn to live without fear is to learn how really
live for the first time.

4 comments:

Well written, Davey. I tried to follow up on your friend's question by writing on my card: "Beyond the US and Canada, what is at stake for the rest of the world regarding Keystone XL and the oil sands more generally?" That phrasing was tame enough to get through the gatekeepers, but it wasn't pointed enough to really put her on the spot about climate change. You can see her answer at 2h01 in the full video. Her final response was that this pipeline is good for the world because it would make the US and Canada more wealthy. With such persuasive reasoning, I'm sure the rest of the world will understand.

Yeah, they approached this from a very singular perspective. The gentleman said, towards the end of the "conversation" (a conversation between the Premier and her Friend) that "all views should have an opportunity to be heard" and that if one were to submit a "legitimate question" then they would be answered and represented. I did submit a legitimate question that she "answered" around 51:13... but the direction with which she approached it did not even begin to address an answer as I'd hoped to have understanding. I asked about the shared solutions for environmental damages and what their priorities are regarding conservation. She merely stated that the US and Canada have similar views on infrastructure regulation and strict protocol for clean-ups when the system fails. (Although, I suppose that does answer the question-- their only "environmental" concern is regarding maintenance of the pipeline and collection of the oil. WHAT ABOUT ALL OF THE PET BIRDS!??!?)

This is why eastern radicals strap bombs to their chest in order to get heard. I do not condone these types of actions, but as Kevin Spacey said:"Wanting people to listen, you can't just tap them on the shoulder anymore. You have to hit them with a sledgehammer, and then you'll notice you've got their strict attention."